Britain supplying Ukraine with weapons to counter Russian Navy

My thoughts entirely, long range missiles are less likely I think certainly until this Frigate hits water many years from now.

Ukraine are nearly there already with their own long range (300km) anti-ship missiles – Neptune – which carry a 150kg warhead.

And are just coming into service, not quite in time for the peak of the current crisis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptune_(cruise_missile)

But are probably more appropriate for one of those Amphibious Assault Ships or Cruisers than a Martlet.

Pete, I think it will be Sea Spear, I cut and Paste a twit from Navy lookout, if accurate the link seems to indicate Ukraine has been talking about a purchase since October (I got the info from the headline, to right to register for the whole article).

Not in UK service @byMBDA Sea Spear/Maritime Brimstone apparently most likely option for export to Ukraine

shephardmedia.com/news/defence-n…

Twit…. Tweet 😀

Cheers Mark personally I would be putting 2 x 4 Sea Brimstone launchers onto type 31, River B2 and type 32. Low cost, effective, UK IP, minimal interface requirements and can also be used against shore targets. The Marte ER would also be a reasonable interim longer range medium weight interim ASHM, either ship launched or heli launched.

Pete

Italy’s Teseo would also be a decent option for larger AShM, not really sure why we aren’t availing ourselves of these existing European designs that are already within the MBDA group. I’m baffled why they weren’t even considered in the interrim competition. But we canned that competition anyway, so not much point in playing fantasy weapon fit-outs now…!

Agree on options Joe.. but on the need….other than world is decidedly hotter than it was even just several months ago ….and were possibly just two years away from the return of Putins mate, the Orange One, and the ‘Europe can look after itself’ ideology. The fantasy is the belief there isn’t a short term need. Although I accept your right…decision made.

Well, when it comes to wisdom of the decision we could talk for a fair while on that!
While the RN may never have used ship-launched AShMs in a conflict before, that isn’t an entirely solid justification for not needing them until FC/ASW comes into service- which is effectively what they’re saying. I guess they can point to Iraq and the Falklands to show that helicopter-delivered missiles are proven to be effective, but neither of those conflicts is really comparable to even a limited conflict with Russians in the Black Sea.
That said, the question becomes “are we actually going to get into a shooting war with Russia at sea over Ukraine?” to which I believe the answer is virtually 100% no. In which case, why bother with the armament? It potentially reduces our deterrent, but if everyone knows we’re not going to use it anyway what is the value of it. We are far more likely to put a few smaller Martlet or Sea Venom downrange for a “shot across the bows” or a mission kill than we are to launch a missile capable of taking out a large surface combattant (and even then the likelihood is vanishingly small). In which case, we’re perfectly well armed for the scenario that we’re likely to face.
I don’t really like it, but I can kind of see the RN’s reasoning.

Indeed. People never point to damages and losses suffered due to Ashm in the Falklands. Govt should probably go the whole hog…scrap all ships except Rivers block Iii…..we will never need them so why have them! Sorted.

When the requirement was launched Teseo EVO had not been built. The previous versions were long in the tooth.

Ah, OK, well that would make sense then!

We should try and get as much firepower to Ukraine as quick as possible. I would hope there are plans on how we could strengthen Ukraine defenses in the short term, medium and long term.

Agree. However, long term, we need to remove any need for Russian minerals or logistics (from China) and there within minimize our dependency on products / services that support the Chinese economy. I feel we are asleep in a war.

The west is addicted to fast moving consumer goods. We would need a strategy to move supply from China to a regime we could get on with, with a cost structure to that would meet the wests demand for affordable products. India comes to mind, Malaysia? The Philippines? No easy task.

True story. International scaffold provider moved from China to… Latvia.

Wages are becoming so high, quality issues AND logistics timelines.

Hence, I’d written on another thread about engaging the Ukraine as a manufacturing base.

And YES, Latvia had and has corruption, however, I would wager that manufacturing could be made to work – RR with aero / marine engines? BAE, shipbuilding? Railway rolling stock? Testing?

Long may the trend continue

China has plenty of corruption too.

Then, let’s reshore.

People are slowly and quietly doing so.

Container costs and lead times are a big incentive.

The big disincentive is lack of capacity. Which could be fixed by tax breaks for plant and machinery and new factories – like the Germans do with soft loans added…

Reduced energy costs for certain industry would be another good idea we could borrow from Europe. Trying to run an energy-intensive industrial process (like steel manufacture), when you’re paying the same unit rate for energy as the local Costa, does not make for a sustainable business.
Very low interest loans or the tax breaks you suggest for updating equipment and training to bring our industries up to speed would be a great strategic move that could truly level us up. So I’m not expecting that to happen any time soon!

yes

Meanwhile, the UK STILL sends foreign aid to China, amounting in 2019 to a record £68.4 million….

I’m not a Con.

Should I ever get elected, I’d first sort rail electrification and secondly man the Royal Navy and Royal.

Yes Brimstone would be lethal against a seaborne invasion. In Numbers probably enough to preclude any early such strategy.

I suppose it will come down to how quick we can manufacture, deliver install and train. There are four Island class, ex coast guard cutters in the Ukrainian navy that seem likely candidates for a retro fit with Sea Spear (Brimstone) missile systems

I think Monsieur Macron has just sold Ukraine down the river though GMD without a paddle. God alone knows what he promised that tin pot dictator Putin for his “peace in our time” moment.

Surely the “peace in our time” moment will put the British establishment on edge. Too many parallels with the past. I also believe at this moment the USA and the UK are not in the mood to back down just yet, both Biden and Boris need the distraction, Macron may be able to commit France and possible the EU to terms, but not NATO?

Most sea launched missiles are initially tested as land launched?

Exactly. Even air to air missiles are first ground tested, before being test fired from an aircraft.

Hi Daveyb,

That would not surprise me in the slightest, in fact I would be surprised if it wasn’t tested from a ground launcher to start with. In fact I have drawn attention to surface launched trials of Brimstone, but I have always recognised that further development would be needed.

Just because a demonstration of a potential application of a system was successful it does not mean that the system is currently setup for ground or surface launched use. As has been stated by others the missile is the last element in chain of systems.

Test firing a missile, especially a development or demonstration missile, on a range uses a different set of systems and instruments to monitor the launch and flight of the new weapon or application. The actual envelope of the test firing was probably very constrained and with very little in common with a fully operational surface launched system.

As I said in my post I would be surprised if MBDA were not or had not looked at a surface launched system. Such a system would need to be integrated with surface based radars and C2 systems none of which are trival tasks, not least because they would likely involve working with other companies.

That is not say that it could not or should not be undertaken, nor that it should cost the earth either.

Cheers CR

I agree, having watched a Sidewinder trial in California, where it was attached to a 1km long cable suspended over a gorge (new software upgrade for the IIR sensor). I know how many tests are required, before its deemed safe enough to try it on an aircraft. Integrating within the aircraft also took quite a while. So for a new coastal battery or installing it on a ship, I’d imagine would be just the same convoluted path, where you need to jump, through all the risk assessment hoops and safety cases before its even considered.

MBDA has a very large portfolio of systems, with a lot of them duplicated between individual countries, eg MICA, ASRAAM and METEOR. However, I think MBDA are missing an opportunity here and perhaps not pushing enough for systems to be used by the Navy and the Army. Whether its Sea Brimstone (Sea Spear) or a ground launched one. I know they have looked at both roles recently and have published images of them mounted to the unmanned Milrem and Ajax vehicles. But that also brings into question Sea Venom. Why have Sea Venom, when Brimstone or even Spear-3 can do the same job? Especially as MBDA have proposed using all three systems for a coastal defence system.

For the Army, acquiring a ground launch Brimstone/Spear-3 must be a no brainer. Having the ability to conduct precision strikes out past 100km. It would be a perfect partner for MLRS.

Similarly, firing Brimstone/Spear-3 from either a ship based canister or from a manned/unmanned air vehicle would give a ship a much more flexible capability in dealing with individual or multiple threats. Even though Sea Venom has the larger warhead, both system are of a similar weight where Spear 3 has the greater range.

You do wonder if the various project teams talk to each other?

I agree with your main point that MBDA technology should be better exploited, however, I do not think that MBDA are entirely at fault here.

MBDA is a relatively small player when compare Lockhead Martin and BAE Systems, for example, so does not have the financial clout that those companies have. Even more importantly it it a very specialised company focused on missile technology and as I say above the missile is at the end of a long system chain which in MBDA’s case means other companies. These two points mean that it is difficult for MBDA to ‘go it alone’ on a system level.

On the plus side MBDA and the MoD’s Team Complex Weapons have a very good relationship and have had considerable success in recent years, Meteor, Sea Venom and Brimstone / (hopefully) Spear 3. (That is not to say it has been plain sailing, obviously..!)

You are also right to highlight the similarity between Brimstone and Sea Venom. This is entirely explainable and understandable given their histories which go back into the 1970’s. Sea Venom was initially call Sea Skua II and whilst there is probably very little if anything physically in common between the two, the definately came into being along a common evolutionary / experience path. Brimstone evolved out of a late 1970’s requirement that was put on hold while the technology developed to a point that made the seeker possible… It just so happens that these two very seperate programme ‘families’ ended up being very similar in many respects.

I think this convergence has more to do with the way technology has developed rather a lack on communication between teams. MBDA now develop CAMM and ASRAAM in parallel and from reading the capabilities of Brimstone / Spear 3 and Sea Venom I sense that experience and ideas are indeed shared between teams, even if the missiles remain physically different because of their histories.

Finally, your point about land base Brimstone. Yes, definately. I actually had this very discussion on another threat, I think with Airborne, just recently. Precision fires is the way to go and a Land Brimstone / Spear 3 implementation makes prefect sense to me, but it would not be simple. Target acquisition in the land environment is a complex problem, mountains and trees, buildings and people clutter the picture and limit horizon of ground based sensors. So I think such a system would depend on air based ISTAR assets from small quadcopters with a camera and datalink to stealthy UAV with ESM, radar and IR sensors and loads of data fusion somewhere in the mix. Get it all working and the Army would have a powerful stand off precision fires capability. Technically possible, yes, whether the Army / MoD could deliver such a programme at the moment – doubtful, sadly.

Anyway, that is quite a weighty tome so I’ll stop.

Cheers CR

Cheers mate, that explains a lot. Does BAe still have its 33% stake in MBDA though?

Dare I say it? If we get Ajax SV in to service. then this would be one of sensor platforms used for precision fire using Brimstone/Spear-3. Though guys on the ground and JTACs will always be feeding back info. The Army definitely needs to up its game with respect to the small number of UAVs it operates. The Watchkeeper would be the primary sensor for such a system. Though they will be easy meat for any decent SHORAD system, which means they need a lot more to counter the predictive losses.

BAE own 37,5% of MBDA

You are welcome, mate.

I would like to see the Army adopt a deep strike capability and fully exploit the range potential that the air launched version of Spear 3 promises which is listed as being 140km. Although a ground launched version would need a pretty reasonable booster to maintain the range of an air launched version.

There are many who suggest that MBDA tend to understate the effective range of their missiles. So it is likely that a ground launched Spear 3 would be able to threaten an enemy’s rear areas and high value assets such as large SAM’s and bring choke points under fire, etc.

I agree with your points about the contribution of elements playing their part in supporting precison fires. I would, however, point out that the platforms you highlight would be constrained by range and survivability issues. Watchkeeper, for example, can only operate up to 150km from the control unit which would need to sit a safe distance from enemy fire units. It is also limited to 16,000 and is not, or does not appear, to be a stealth platform. As such you are right to point out that SHORAD would be a real issue in peer on peer conflicts.

A JTAC / FAC may be able to operate behind enemy lines but otherwise they would be embedded with frontline units.

As such I think the UK will need a stealthy ISTAR UAV to be able to properly develop a deep precisions fires capability. Given the RAF / RN UAV programmes such a capability may be possible so perhaps the UK could develop a deep precision fires capability.

I would also point out that such a capability would have a coastal defence aspect, given the programmable seeker that is already on Brimstone and slated for Spear 3 I believe.

Cheers CR

MBDA performed sea demonstrations of Sea Spear against multi simultaneous targets in 2013 and have been, since 2015 been actively marketing the system internationally at exhibitions.

https://youtu.be/_bmc1NwLaDE

I may be wrong here, but I think that even the Sea Spear version of Brimstone is still somewhat more lightweight than the Sea Venom in terms of warhead at least. The latest versions of Brimstone have very good range, but Sea Venom is termed as a ship killer up to the 500 Te corvette class. Even with a 16 kg warhead, I don’t think that Sea Spear can match that.
I do see the value in surface-launched Sea Venom and Brimstone, but I don’t see them as equivalents. Due to the size of the warhead, I’m also not sure what the Army would need a “Land Venom” for. For coastal defence, I’m right with you there!
Now, if MBDA were to come up with an insert that allowed you to quad pack Sea Venom and Sea Spear into VLS (or however many would fit in the diamater of the tube), so you could mix and match surface missiles against threats from FIAC to corvettes to larger surface combattants (assuming that there’s a heavyweight on board in the form of FCASW), then MBDA might get some interest. That would be great on a T32, where its GP mission set could be augmented very flexibly.

That’s correct the Brimstone and Spear-3 both share the same tandem (HEAT) programmable fused directable 6.3kg warhead. The Sea Spear uses the Brimstone II body, but also introduces an inertial navigation system for mid-course guidance corrections and is fitted with the larger 16kg warhead. It is still a tandem (HEAT) programmable directional effects warhead. But the increased warhead volume and electronics, means some of the fuel had to be reduced for it to fit. So its range is quoted as 8 to 20km, instead of the Brimstone II’s 40 to 60km.

Sea Venom carries a 30kg semi-armour piercing warhead. It is a bigger missile than Spear-3 in both mass and size. Yet has significantly shorter range at 20+km, compared to Spear-3 at 140ish km. I believe this is due to the required volume needed for the warhead, which reduces the space available for the fuel.

When you compare Sea Venom with a heavier anti-ship missile like the NSM. Which has 4 times the mass, is a metre and half longer, carries a heavier 125kg warhead, out to a range of around 185km depending on the programmed flight profile. The Sea Venom isn’t so bad at what it was designed for.

The short 20km-ish range of the Sea Venom would preclude its use by the Army. A number of guided 155mm shells would do the same job. Whereas, Brimstone/Sea Spear/Spear-3 would equally be useful for the Navy. If the Navy needed a weapon that could counter a swarm attack of either FIAC or UAVs, the Brimstone would be an ideal choice as its a fire and forget weapon, unlike Martlet. Though Martlet is a damned sight cheaper. It would also give a ship the ability to support Marines operating along the coast, by providing precision fires against a range of targets, especially MBTs. A lesser known fact is that Brimstone can target slower moving aircraft such as helicopters.

MBDA own the rights to the soft launch system used on the CAMM/Sea Ceptor. It is used to lob both the CAMM and the CAMM-ER, which weigh 99kg and 160kg respectively. This gives plenty of leeway of adding a booster that includes the reaction jets, to launch a Brimstone or Spear-3 via a soft launch VLS.

What we really could do with, is that someone within the Navy to say we urgently need this and to pressure DE&S into funding it. MBDA will be more than willing to research a VLS Brimstone/Spear-3 and then sell the system, if the Navy have a need for it and DE&S pay for it!

Oh, I dont have see this news, interesting.

But even with the IOC, I dont think the stock is sufficient to provide enough missile.
Also, I dont think the UK/FR will take the risk to give the last gen in Ukraine.
To risky to see a last gen going to Russia.

A bunch of old harpoon / exocet (Not hard to find even without the french), or sea skua for the same class can be enough to do great damage.

We have here an example of why we must be able to produce high end but also midend stuffs.
With the highends for our own troops, and the midend to supply country in the same situation than Ukraine (Or Taiwan:..).

Reading between the lines UK are being progressively less open about what is bought and when it is bought and what the stockpiles actually are.

Gone are the days when the purchase quantities of Storm Shadow were well known.

Well its both bad and good…

Good because such informations doesnt really need to be public.
Bad because we know that its not really to protect the information but mostly to hide the reduced stocks…

I’m not so sure.

There are war level stocks of some things.

Things have been quietly built up since the disaster of SDSR 2010.

Less lines for sure but more depth.

There were, for sure, some unfortunate events such as drawing down Dart too quickly while T42 was still in service. And running down Wolf before Ceptor was fully in service. This lead to some embarrassing m. and maybe true, stories about lack of missiles on ships on task.

There is, an announced, joint stockpile for P8 – what is in it: who knows?

If Russia has 30 boats (including SSBN’s) how many of them do u think are operational at one time? If the concern is how many quite new astutes can be operational at one time it has to be applied the other way. My guess would be 1-2 Russian SSBN deployed and an occasional Oscar SSGN and 1 or 2 SSN’s available at the same time.
Got to remember the Russians list ships in the navy that have no chance of going to sea. Never mind on a long 6 month deployment.
They have the 4 delta IV SSBN and a 5 of borei SSBN.
4 Oscar SSGN and 3 yassen.
For SSN they have 1-2 Sierra and victor 3 and 3-4 Akula’s available.
Not many of these will be able to go to sea at one time or for long deployments.
Nato forces know when any of these goes to sea

I haven’t included the diesel boats in that list. Or the couple of special boats

What exactly is “your guess” based on? Aside from “guesses” the foundational reality is this: 10 submarines on the UK side; 30+ in the Russian Northern Fleet alone. Of course one must add NATO allies (notably the US). THAT is where the balance tips to the West at sea. But quite frankly the conventional balance only takes one so far. The biggest concern in any conflict would be when either sides SSNs start running into the other sides SSBNs; or when either side starts targetting the other sides bases/command and control. At that point, all bets are off and nuclear escalation potentially becomes imminent. This is why Russian doctrine does not accept the idea that a conflict with peer adversaries can remain conventional.

So when we start talking about war with Russia and “clashes at sea”, we very quickly start talking about potential nuclear war. That is why too much of this discussion about “confronting Russia” is juvenile and why, I think and hope, most NATO allies have ZERO interest in doing so.

Your mistake is that Russia keeps subs that are not going to sea or able to go to sea as it’s a way to make fleet look bigger and for crews to get paid etc. Even Wikipedia has a rough guide as to what subs are active and the numbers are way under 30. There are other sites that can give rough numbers. H I Sutton has a great knowledge of submarines. The numbers I gave are roughly correct and my guess is based on knowledge and research on the topic over many years. If I don’t know about a topic on here I ask for info and research it. I don’t post unless I’m sure I know what I’m saying is correct.
Now I never said Russia was nothing to fear or that the Royal Navy sub numbers were enough to combat Russia’s.
I was just stating that when putting up numbers that Russia has 30+ nuclear boats and Royal Navy can only deploy 2-3 at a time it should be considered to state how many Russia can deploy at once if that’s how you are showing the Royal Navy numbers.
Anyway no mean intent was meant i was posting for conversation sake.

Yep it was the same back in the cold war.

Yes. Russia has had over 200 nuclear boats to disposed of when the Cold War ended.
It was cut up the boats leaving 1 section either side of the reactor compartment. Then back in the sea until a later date when the reactor section could be taken separately to a concrete pad storage.

We currently have 6 SSNs in various states of readiness, which includes the two Trafalgar class which have /are receiving a extension to allow for the late delivery of the remaining 3 Astute boats. We should have all 7 Astutes in service by 2026.
Despite what many may think, our SSNs are not specifically tasked with protecting our SSBNs, they are more than capable of looking after themselves.
The tasking our SSNs receive along with surface and air assets all collectively contribute to keeping our SSBNs safe by providing intel for them.

SSBNs have to enter and leave Faslane; that is a vulnerability (also on the Russian side) that must be guarded as a top priority. … Faslane, and any SSBN in port, is a huge vulnerability. Erode that and you erode the deterrent. How long, in a conventional conflict, before either sides conventional assets start running into the other sides nuclear assets? This is a scenario you want to avoid at all costs and the only real way to do so is not to go to war.

Yes you are correct, entering/leaving Faslane is a vulnerability. However, to say that they are ‘guarded/escorted’ in and out is incorrect.
If we have a OOA deployer from the North, it starts as intel driven and various assets are assigned to locate and track it. That all feeds into Northwood, if we have a SSBN about to deploy then they will either be tasked to depart earlier or, wait a bit longer depending on the intel picture.There is a fair bit of flex in the time a SSBN spends on patrol, being extended by a few weeks is par for the course.
A SSBNs best weapon is it’s stealth, they are quieter then our SSNs and armed with the same Spearfish torpedoes. They don’t need anyone riding shotgun, it would only aid in betraying their rough location.

And when cruise missiles start slamming into SSBNs and SSBN support facilities in Faslane? And when assets you rely on in peacetime start to “go dark” in the reality of a full conventional war? When your corresponding shore infrastructure is destroyed in Devonport and Portsmouth? When the same starts to happen to Russian Northern Fleet facilities?

Look, the bottom line is this: any conflict with Russia should be absolutely avoided unless UK survival is DIRECTLY threatened. Nothing else is worth risking (even slightly risking) the consequences of what happens next once you cross the war threshold.

So let’s chill out and hope for the best from Macron’s initiative. Right now he may actually be one of the few adults left in the room.

Don’t believe we were actually discussing an imminent war with Russia Roy? But agree with you, it should be avoided at all costs if possible.

If that happens we are all f***ed. Those who don’t die straight away will wish they had

Great explanation. The type of info you can’t find in a Google search. 👍 Great insight.

Yep. As always.

Roy the truth is the Russian nuclear boat fleet is more of a paper tiger than a lot of people realise. All it’s SSNs are vintage, being designed in the 60s-70s and build in the 80s, ( the Planned end of service date for even the new boats was the early 2020s) they have a couple of improved project 971As but even they were laid down in the 90s and are due to retire. The very youngest boat has 20 years of active service the oldest has 40. The crews of these boats are probably the walking dead if they are sent against 21c ASW ships or western Nuclear boats. From what I’ve read they have about 6 of these boats in the northern fleet that are not in deep refit or unfit for service, so if you look at the Rule of three That’s a couple of Deployable SSNs that are probably up to the standards of the old valiant class SSN.

The SSGNs fleet is in a better state but very small, with the project 949A boats only 25-33 years old, but the acoustics these boats is only up to 1970s level so they are still only likely up to the valiant class standards, the northern fleet has 2 of these A available so flip a coin on if one is available for deployment.

The only really modern boats that are probably up to U.K.,US boats are the three project 885 boats, the first of these was laid down in 1995 ( the design is still a 1980s Soviet project) and launched in 2010, this design is thought to be up to the standards ( or a smig better than) of a previous generation US UK boat (Trafalgar/LA). The two improved 885s have new reactors and are true 21c boats and are thought to be just shy of an astute or seawolf. But they were only commissioned a handful of months ago and are probably still working up, with only one in the European theatre, so again its a toss up if one was available to deploy.

so when you look at it that way the Russian nuclear fleet can put nato ports and facilities at risk but not in the way the USSR could. Those 30 boats need a lot of context around them. What is interesting is that there is a lot of though that the Russian SSN fleet ( being likely only able to deploy a handful of boats) that are inferior in acoustics and passive sensors will not even try to contest the Atlantic but instead stay in northern waters close to home ( away from the Northern Europe electric boats which as a whole balance out the Russian electric boats ) and use long range missile attacks to hold key NATO sites at risk.

That is very important insight.

But if we assume that that bulk of the Russian fleet is largely useless, then NATO would have to constrain itself not to take this to the Barents Sea even as Russia is potentially winning the war on the ground … because if it were to do that, then of nuclear escalation would be a real danger once the Russians fear the potential loss of their SSBNs.

The terrifying reality is that nuclear escalation becomes a real danger regardless of the state of the conventional forces of either side. Whether the West is weak, Russia is weak, or whether both sides are about equal, in the grand scheme of things, all roads carry a high risk of the use of nuclear weapons in the event of a hot war.

I think we have forgotten that lesson from the Cold War and instead many believe there will be no consequences in confronting Russia in an area that is vital to them, but not vital to the West. We think we can draw artificial lines where we just won’t go. I think based on the lessons of history that is a highly dangerous assumption.

Hi Roy yes, an actual fully fledged war between nuclear powers has never happened for a reason. In reality nato could only really ever risk a defensive war because A lot of Russia’s nuclear weapons are exposed and any perceived attack on a nations nuclear deterrent is considered a trigger for a nuclear response. Russia would have a bit more leeway as the only European nuclear powers are tucked well way and have their nuclear deterrent so well hidden.

Im of a personal view that NATO has pushed to far and we ignored Russia in the 1990s. The west treated Russia like a defeated enemy and Putin is the response unfortunately. The problem is we cannot be seen as being weak as Russia is not the true strategic threat and the monster is watching and waiting to see how strong the west is.

I personally think this is a Geopolitical play by Russia and a test of NATO after a lot of geopolitical mistakes by western powers. Personally I think we need to get Rock solid agreements on the sovereign of Ukraine along with an understanding that NATO will not move closer to Russia as well as making Ukraine a very strong independent buffer state. This would allow the West and Russia to start stabilising relations as we don’t want to driver Russia towards China and we need all our resources ( soft and hard power focused on the containment of China).

Hi Jonathan, I thought there already was a solid agreement to protect the sovereignty and integrity of Ukraine signed by the west and Russia when Ukraine agreed to give up their nuclear weapons. I think you are correct that Putin may see this as a political move to force NATO into concessions, but if he thinks there is a chance he can take Ukraine for an acceptable price, then he will be tempted to make a move (my opinion). That is why we should continue to support Ukraine with arms etc. Putin may have actually revitalized the NATO alliance with this latest move, which is no bad thing.

Hi GMD unfortunately the Budapest memorandum was more of an understanding, it had no legal standing and provided no guarantees of support or any consequence for breaches.It was effectively not worth the paper it was written on.

any new Guarantee needs to be backed by a level of consequence ( EU, US and U.K. economic sanction).

i would also think some form of mutual aid pact between Europe nations To support Eastern Europe so, as a Ukraine, Finland, Baltic state, Poland, Germany, France, U.K. European mutual aid pact would have the mass to blunt Russian aggression but would not be considered the same level of threat to Russia as NATO. I would like to see NATO turned into a more worldwide focused pact that included Democracies with more of a world wide focus ( so include, Japan, India, Australia etc) to counter the rise of Chinese hedgmony.

Which country would Russia have to invade to qualify as vital to the survival of the UK ?

A very pertinent question. Which country would you be willing to sacrifice your family and your city for? That is the sobering question.

The problem is that NATO has expanded without really ever asking that question. Some NATO states are clearly vital to the UK. West Germany fit that category prior to 1990 since a Soviet takeover of Germany would have de facto subjugated the UK, But now, the further east one goes the less clear it becomes. But one thing is reasonably clear, Ukraine does not fit the category – not in a strategic sense, not in an economic sense and not in terms of any formal alliance commitments.

Don’t disagree, I would like to see NATO as only including nations that share specificity the values of western democracies. removal of counties like Turkey need to be removed and the key question of would you go to war for this nation as a key question for all NATO states. Because if the answer is no then NATO would be doomed.

Your correct that that is a key question… the real world is full of a lot of grey areas and compromises. Clearly there must be red lines while ties can be closer between some allies than others where those lines are more fuzzy…. I make no claim of knowing where those lines should be but a much more honest and realistic discussion is badly needed to define them and make clear the associated consequences of moving them to convince the public majority.

from a purely military point of view, if a conflict between western europe / nato and russia is considered plausible, then turkey has a large military that threatens russia from the south. If they left nato or stayed neutral that would make russia’s position moving west into europe much stronger. If turkey allied with Russia (after having been shunned by the rest of nato for eg) that would have an even bigger impact on the security position in the eastern Mediterranean (life on cyprus and the security of RAF Akrotiri would be interesting at the very least).

Agreed on Ukraine. But since we’re not going to defend them we’re right to help them defend themselves.

Any nato county, as to not trigger article 5 would destroy nato and any future chance the west would have to contain China.

its why I would like to see Turkey removed from NATO as it’s behaviour is potentially a risk to NATO integrity.

T|he problem is the current Turkish govt. Up until Erdogan Turkey was a significant plus to NATO defence. The question of it’s membership should be dependent on it’s behaviour after Erdogan. Assuming he doesn’t force our hand.

Hi David, the problem unfortunately is not just Erdogan and his government. It’s a very deep change in the character of Turkish government. All of the Kemalist structures that were designed to resist the rise of a religious state and keep Turkey secular have collapsed, the judiciary has been ripped apart and the army which was always the final defence of kemalist ideals failed in its duty and has been purged of Kemalist officers ( the army had an unwritten but well understood requirement to undertake a coupe and remove a none secular head of state). Effectively all of the structures to allow Turkey to return to a secular democracy have been removed, so unfortunately it’s done.

In the mean time the Turkish leadership is using NATO as a big stick to undertake really aggressive inappropriate politics , which actual is a threat to peace for NATO nations and if NATO has to decided or not to go to war for Turkish bad behaviour it is likely to utterly destroy NATO.

Good points. We’ll find out when Erdogan is gone how deep the damage is to Turkey’s democracy.

I suspect you need to be careful using the rule of three in an actual major war… particularly if one side is choosing when to start. AIUI the rule of three is based on 1 preparing to deploy, 1 deployed and one refitting after deployment so you have a continuous number available at all times. However, if you are planning to start a war, long term continuity is less important and you can accelerate your getting ready to deploy boats at the very least and double your available number for a period of time. If you let your previously deployed boats take it easy then they may also be ready to turn around quicker… although manning is probably an issue ( in a major war you presumably also cancel all leave).

for the people not planning the war then you will probably still have a surge capability but how much depends on your intelligence (including recent deployment cycles) and expectations compared to how long you have to to prepare.

one of the most interesting parts of the iraq war inquiry was the overview of the pre war build up and the complex decision that had to be made over being as ready as possible compared to the implications of being seen to be getting ready for war. Basically you have to balance preparation vs politics and surprise.

I know, Turkey is a big problem but I think Turkey is effectively not within the western power block and is just using/trading on NATO membership as a big stick to get away with bad behaviour.

If I was Putin I would be exploiting that ruthlessly in the future as a way to crack open NATO disunity.

or the other side of the Turkish issues is:

I also don’t not doubt for a second that if called to enact art 5 in defence of a European nation or the US Against Russia Turkey would Immediately leave NATO and declare Neutrality. I suspect most NATO thinkers know that and I bet Turkey and Russia may already have some form of understanding around this.

Damm, my fault!😱

Tricky buggers those quantum submarines.

Dauntless just tweeted it’s soon to leave port for trials.

Thank god for that! She is way behind on her PIP!!

Where would you like them to be then? To save your blood pressure have a read of Thepinstriped line blog and you will get your answers there.

That like reading the Pravda to know Soviet Union…

Sorry weapons not money

It’s a bit like purchasing a new computer, the chip gets updated every six months so when do you actually buy one?

At some point, you simply have to because it’s needed now, so I suggested fitting the JSM/NSM to Typhoon at least one year ago as you may recall and again recently only to be told it will take too long to fit and cost too much?

And guess what we need something more advanced now!

“The missile flight test program started early 2015 with numerous captive carry tests on an F-16 and will continue with flight tests of increasing complexity through 2016 and 2017. The flight test program is scheduled to complete in accordance with plan in 2017.”

https://www.airrecognition.com/index.php/archive-world-worldwide-news-air-force-aviation-aerospace-air-military-defence-industry/defense-security-exhibitions-news/air-show-2017/lima-2017-bis/lima-2017-news-coverage-report-bis/3367-kongsberg-s-jsm-missile-to-be-added-to-eurofighter-typhoon-weapons-package.html

I wonder what classified systems are being developed or in operation to track warships? After all, what use would the Tomahawk V be?

PNT [positioning, navigation and timing] systems.

https://breakingdefense.com/2012/05/google-satellites-can-track-every-ship-at-sea-including-us-na/

If you believe the Russian economy is bigger than Germany then either Mr Putin pays you well or you also believe that Germany won the WWII. I believe I read an article recently that suggested a significant number of Russian hospitals had no running water or central heating.

Isn’t that the point? The overall economy isn’t what you use to judge, it’s effective military spend. Spending less on hospital central heating systems doesn’t degrade missile effectiveness.

Putin choosing to spend on the military rather than hospitals is why there are currently a threat, not why they aren’t.

Sadly the only Government paying me is the UK’s, my pension.

Sorry, but there is no way Russia has a larger economy than Germany. With 2021 figures, Germany is the 4th largest in the world, and Russia 11th

I agree that that is what some sets of figures show and the problem is that the Russian economic data doesn’t fit the models very well. An economy that is capable of producing Yasens on a production line at the rate they are at an understated Ruble value has to be up there in the top 4/5.

It just shows they prioritising defence spending over other government responsibilities. What are the good Russian public going without the fund the defence budget.

A bit like the US whose infrastucture is falling apart, uncountable homeless on the streets, an out of control Fentanyl problem but the best military money (borrowed) can buy.

Too sensible Pete, just think if we had this on our Typhoon’s and Merlin’s, it would complement Venom and Martlet nicely. The Italians are going strong what with new diesel subs and their DDX’s, the latter’s CGI on twitter (and hopefully it’s not a joke) showing 16×8 VLS plus 6×4 AShMs, possibly 6×6 CAMM-ER and others and a Osprey type craft on the pad and we haven’t even got the T83 on the drawing board yet!? Are we behind the eight ball or what?!
If Harpoon is going out and the fittings are still on RN ships well why not build a you beaut SeaSpear/Brimstone+ to fit them all? UK know how, UK build, 4-6-8 missile packs. I don’t think hypersonics will operate out of canisters so why fit something more up to date at least and be able to kit out the whole T23/T45 fleet?

Absolutely. 3 or 4 Brimstone from 40km away or a couple of spear3 from 100km will mission kill most vessels. For all the reasons you list I just cannot understand the MoDs thinking.. I would put Brimstone into Rivers B2 and use two of them for gulf escort duties and free up a type 23.

Plan now for bolting onto type 31s as soon as they are commissioned .

After very recent attempts by outsiders to instigate coups in both Belarus and Kazakhstan, and with historic broken promises made to Gorbachev by James Baker that NATO would not expand Eastwards, any competent leader would look to ensure they had strong defences against a totally untrustworthy NATO.

In addition Erdogan has reportedly promised Ukraine it will help them ‘regain’ the Crimea should hostilities with Russia breakout…hence the prudent gathering of the fleets in the Black Sea…these ships will be needed to take part in the Tomahawk shoot should the Americans want to put on another firework display.

As for the 130k troop build up in their own country…is that illegal? It predominantly followed not proceeded a build up by NATO in states bordering Russia.

Putin is no bully…just more than capable of playing the warmongers in the West at their own game…Chess is the Russian national game after all. He had the opportunity earlier today to sink a US Virginia class SSN reported to have been discovered in Russian territorial waters but let it escape with a warning…IF this turns out to be true…too early for confirmation yet…if indeed it is possible to confirm it.

Sanctions against Russia almost look they are going to be imposed regardless of what Russia does revealing the real agenda here. Won’t help anyone in Europe…the biggest winner from sanctions will be US corporations…always follow the money.

Me and my bosses? Got me there…please explain.

Lol. You talk about Russia’s right to do what it wants within its own borders but you also deny the right of other sovereign nations to conduct their affairs the way they want to. Hilarious. The current actions of Putin will possibly simply serve to drive more nations towards NATO. Finland, Sweden, may be prime candidates.

The only countries (rulers) aligning themselves to Putin are equal despotes who deny democratic principles, imprison their opposition, deny free media and rule by fear and intimidation. Now not all western leaders are competent or rational…but they are accountable.

I truly hope wider conflict doesn’t break out between Russia and Ukraine as it will not serve the interests and well-being of the peoples involved. …but I don’t think your bosses care about that.

Easy mistake to make, them wearing party hats, and the loud music and booze. But that is the subtlety of diplomacy 😀

India has joined a pact with Australia (June 2020). Others in the region will either join or associate with this new formation against China (P.R.C.). Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States have opened diplomatic and mutual good relations with Israel, so the west is automatically assured of useful influence there. Saudi’s close relations with America are a keystone for that country. Brazil is the only South American country to worry about and they are onside. Africa can be bought. The Anglosphere is still the only club that doesn’t mean surrendering your country and people to totalitarians – it’s why so many are trying to get into that handful of countries and none, as in none at all, are fleeing to Russia or The People’s Republic of China or North Korea apart from one individual with a health problem.Left leaning or Communist media in those countries are nota good guide to obvious realities.

Hi Barry we are not talking about China here, India sees China as a strategic threat ( they are wiser that Russia in this case). We are talking about the world wide view of Russia and what is happening in Europe and the truth is that it will not be as clear cut as we in the West think, India has always seen Russia as a nation it can do business with if not a close strategic partner and it will still do business with it as will most other nations. They will more likely see Ukraine as being used as a playing piece by both Russia and NATO.

You always have to remember in Geopolitics nothing is black and white and there are no good guys and bad guys. There is your nation and every other nation, you use the tools you have to keep your nation safe strong and to protect its sovereign. Sometimes that is enlighten self interest other times it’s aggression or stabbing another nation in the front or back all nations have used all the tools, so never ever think we in the west are the paragon of virtue that the rest of the world looks up to as we are not. Just remember how Europe became so wealthy ( it was not from being nice and kind) because the rest of the world does.

First, how do you square your belief in pragmatism as the only potent shaping force in world affairs with a need to examine this country (founder of the western world view), or any other for that matter, in the light of an undefined quality called virtue? To be fair, how well does any country look using the same criteria once you define what virtue is? To keep this short and sweet, I don’t think one advances the international rules based system using abstractions. If any country thinks they will be better off being closer to Russia than the U.S.A. then good luck with that.

Barry the pragmatic pursuit of power, influence, wealth resources and security are the only defining factors in the history of nations. Virtue or Morality is not something any nation has. Individuals may undertake acts of virtue or follow their belief system nations do not.

I know there is a bit of a propensity to look at the history of nations as black or white.. nations and cultures are either good or evil…So the U.K. is a nation of virtue or the British empire was a scourge on humanity. But both are wrong and correct at the same time. The British empire inflicted vast levels of pain and suffering across the world, it plundered continents of wealth and destroyed any nation that stood in its way. It also gave the world the rules of the sea, created industry and spread the rule of law and ideas of personal freedom, it was both one of the worst evils inflicted on humanity and a bright light shining across the world.

The U.K. made vast wealth through the slave trade for hundreds of years….. but then was a major player in stopping it. It stripped Africa of its natural resources and sacked cities ( see Benin city), destroying cultures…..it now supports aid and investment in many areas of Africa. It sold drugs across the world and attacked nations that tried to prevent it doing so…..but it created the freedom of the sea.

The view of the mountain always depends on which side you look at it. We see western democracy as the best form of government providing personal freedom and individuality with NATO as our protector. Other nations see western democracies and NATO as hyper aggressive and intrusive nation builders and ex imperialists who see themselves as better, many of the populations of these countries are not waiting for the west to rescue them, they see the west as a threat.

If you only see yourself as a white knight that everyone should support you are asking for a knife in the back just as you are facing the “bad guy“.

There is no good, bad or morally in Geopolitics there is only what is good for your nation and your population.

I do. My experience watching it from afar was that Donbas was not like that. I can’t see how it is possible for Russia to surround Ukraine this side of WW3. The current NOTAMs, if that is what you are thinking do not seal off the ports.

The doors to Russia did open wide and they responded well but the West then abused it and had a very good attempt at financially raping it whilst having people in all Russian ministries. Can you give a Russian source for Putin’s plans to recreate the USSR?

Half my family is Norwegian and I detect no fear of Russia in them. Umm, south and east of Russia!

Maybe out differences in opinion, for that is all it is, are due to my not being sucked into US propaganda.